Talk:Shamash

Differing etiologies

Utu was a young son of the sumerian gods : Nammu and An.
Utu was the god of the sun and justice.
Nammu and An changed later their names in the babylonian religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saggiga (talk • contribs) 00:17, January 7, 2005 (UTC)

I thought Uttu was supposed to be the offspring of Enki and his granddaughter; does this commentator have the right combination of mythological characters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.214.2 (talk) 05:00, December 17, 2005 (UTC)

No ! you are mixing up Uttu and Utu !

Utu (boy), lord of the sun and justice is son of Nammu and An .

Uttut (girl) , goddess of weaving and clothing, child of Enki and Ninkurra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saggiga (talk • contribs) 18:43, November 11, 2006 (UTC)

I thought that Utu was originally the son of Nanna the moon god and Ningal, before of whom are Sumerian gods. Where's your evidence that An and Nammu became Nanna and Ningal? As far as I can tell An (sky god) developed into Anu (sky god), not into Nanna (moon god). I can't find a reference to Nammu having died, or having anything to do with the sea. T@nn 23:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Shamash - the ancient Mesopotamian Sun god

'Sun god' is the proper term, not "god of the Sun". 73.85.203.37 (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Source Link

"such as the word or, meaning "light".[30]"

There's no info on light meaning or from the source linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.216.195 (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Utu

How is Utu doing now? 185.35.177.19 (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 2 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Utu → Shamash – Common name. Mesopotamian deities and legendary beings have a mixture of Sumerian, Akkadian and other names and I couldn't find a specific Wikipedia naming guideline or policy. The creator of this article used the Sumerian name, but the Akkadian name looks to be more common. I've heard of Shamash but not Utu and was surprised to see the page named like this. I did a previous check to see if there's some preference for Sumerian names but there is no consistency. For example, a Sumerian preference is given to Inanna instead of the Akkadian Ishtar and that had a failed move proposal in 2020. A Sumerian preference exist for Enki too. An Akkadian preference is seen in the examples of Sin (instead of Nannar), Anu (instead of An) and Anzû (isntead of Imdugud). Killuminator (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - counter-propose that all deities of Sumerian origin be moved to their Sumerian names. Skyerise (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
  • You're going to have put up more effort to get those pages moved. This is not how move proposals work.--Killuminator (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. No criteria proposed, seems to be arbitrary proposal. So prefer original Utu. Walrasiad (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  I proposed it as the common name, something that Wikipedia actually encourages. You on the other hand merely prefer the original and so does the first opposing editor. Killuminator (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Utu is the common name of the Sumerian god. Since you proposed no reason and provided no evidence to choose a Babylonian name over a Sumerian other than your preference, then I too gave my preference. Walrasiad (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The proposal is based on the common name, not my personally preferred name. Your own stated opposition is based on what you prefer (your own words). Utu and Shamash are the same deity known under different names in different languages. Saying Utu is the common name of the Sumerian god is like saying Zeus is the common name of the Greek god or that Jupiter is the common name of the Roman god but that's not what this discussion is about. The text of my own proposal notes that there's an inconsistency in using Sumerian and Akkadian names, you're not telling me anything I don't know or haven't said. Unlike the Zeus/Jupiter example, this God known by different names in neighboring cultures only has one Wikipedia page and the Akkadian name is demonstrably the more common one, he appears in the Epic of Gilgamesh under the name Shamash for example.I'd previously checked if there's a Wikipedia guideline favoring Sumerian names and there isn't one. Maybe there ought to be a policy or guideline for this but Shamash is favored by the common name recommendation. --Killuminator (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Zeus/Jupiter is exactly what the discussion is about. As to "demonstrably", you repeat but not demonstrate. Since you present nothing but your preference, that is all I can presume is behind this. In which case, I'll state mine.

Not meaning to be difficult, but if you're going to make a proposal, at least try to be persuasive, provide an argument and evidence for it. You're the one proposing the move, after all. Simply stating "nothing prevents it" is just simply stating your preference. Don't be surprised if others find it insufficient and simply state their preference too. Walrasiad (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I've given you the policies. I've given you the evidence. You'll be given nothing more. Killuminator (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Then I'm afraid I find the proposal unconvincing, and retain my opposition to the change. Walrasiad (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The language is called "Akkadian", not "Babylonian". There is no distinct Assyrian, Mariote or Eshnunnean name of the sun god. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not a mere language issue, but more subtle than that. Like most other cases of this pantheon, Utu is the original Sumerian deity, and Shamash probably originally a Semitic deity that assimilated the characteristics of Utu and became identified with it. e.g. they have different genealogies (e.g. different fathers). So it is not mere translation of a word, they have distinct origins. That there are a lot more works referring to "Shamash" simply reflects that the greater volume of documents available to scholars come from later periods, and that's what they're commenting on. But you are not likely to see the term "Shamash" being applied backwards as the common name for the Sumerian god, in the context of the Sumerian era. It would be mighty weird to refer to "Shamash" in 3500 BCE. So we are making a conscious choice on how much primacy we give to the original Sumerian deity over the later Babylonian deity - do we go with originality, or with volume of documents? There is no happy choice here. My preference is for originality, as it seems the Semitic deity assimilated into the Sumerian deity, rather than vice-versa - that is, what we know of "Shamash" is primarily the older Sumerian myths (when it was called Utu), not the Semitic myths. Moreover, backward-fitting is very objectionable (e.g. shouldn't be referring to "Shamash" in 3500 BCE). I would also prefer this article was better written, and not a mishmash. Moreover, Utu has the distinct advantage being a rather stable spelling, whereas "Shamash" is often spelled "Šamaš" or "Samas". I expect it is a mere matter of time before we start seeing RM struggles over the spelling. Walrasiad (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Incredibly ill informed comment, I really think you should get caught up with past 60 years of research.

1. What distinct genealogy of Shamash do you know of that's not moon god + Ningal? This one was so influential it even seeped into Hurrian tradition. Will be extremely curious to see these sources since they seem to be unknown to most Assyriologists.

2. I once again am asking why do you call Shamash strictly a "Babylonian" deity - once again, what different sun god was there in Assyria, in the Diyala states, in Mari, in the Middle Euphrates area? Seems like you basically treat "Babylonia" as a synonym of Mesopotamia as a whole EXCEPT for anything Sumerian...?

3. Not sure what do you call a "Sumerian era", 3500 BCE is well before cuneiform, and we actually do not know what language was dominant at the time. Consult even just the wiki Proto-Cuneiform article.

4. "Older Sumerian myths"? The oldest myth about a Mesopotamian sun god is known from copies from Abu Salabikh and Ebla was was written in Akkadian, consult Manfred Krebernik's treatment of it here. Most "Sumerian" myths are a product of Isin-Larsa/Old Babylonian scribal schools, which were active at a time when Sumerian functioned like Latin does in the west today and virtually everyone spoke Akkadian as vernacular (and if they did not, they spoke Amorite or Hurrian). That's roughly 1800=1500 BCE. Also, most of what we know about Mesopotamian deities comes from administrative texts, not from myths, and especially not "Sumerian" myths. There are very few myths written -in- Sumerian which feature the sun god, actually. Even fewer that actually focus on him. In contrast, in Akkadian we have the aforementioned early myth, Epic of Gilgamesh, a unique narrative about the origin of Ishum, a variety of hymns... Worth noting it was Sippar in the north that was the more important cult center too, Larsa was only really an important city in the, well, Isin-Larsa period, and for political, not religious reasons. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

1. There are Akkadian accounts making him the son of Enlil or even the son of Anu. (Black & Green, Dictionary p.182). That's one of the indicators that Shamash was probably originally a distinct Semitic god that only got identified with Utu later.

2. I never called him "strictly" Babylonian. It is pretty common to refer to Utu as Sumerian, and Shamash as Babylonian.

3. Because that is the customary date for the emergence of Sumerian city-states, erection of temples for patron gods, etc.

4. As in all ancient cultures, guys who write down stuff are not the guys who invent stuff. Myths are sustained orally for many centuries, long before they are written down, particularly tell-tale if they're in poetic form (common mnemonic device). If you're using old pre-Akkadian Sumerian heroes and cities in your story, that's a good indicator you're likely recording older Sumerian myths, rather than older Semitic myths. Walrasiad (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I recommend using sources more precise than a slightly outdated dictionary aimed at general audiences, Reallexikon der Assyriologie is your friend if you do not want to dig too deep. Manfred Krebernik in the relevant entry (p. 602) suggests that references to deities other than Sin/Nanna as the sun god's father - he brings up Anu - might have been understood as a general reference to descent from him, not necessarily parentage. Your argument seems to be original research, and once again shows lack of familiarity with the discipline. Very curious how you will interpret the existence of multiple traditions with regards to the parents of Enlil, Geshtinanna or Ishkur, which cannot be neatly divided in your favored way - should we separate Geshtinanna in the Shulgi hymns from Geshtinanna in laments due to an isolated difference to different parentage? Similarly very curious how this works in the case of Shamash too, seeing as how Anu and Enlil, if we go by this sharp division, do not really belong to the same tradition as him, seeing as both have etymologically Sumerian names. Oops!

We cannot gain insight into oral tradition, but we can gain insight into differences between Early Dynastic and Old Babylonian literary texts - virtually none are the same. And at best the forerunners of the OB ones go back to Ur III period - even if ex. there was a historical Gilgamesh at some point, there was no legendary Gilgamesh who fought Humbaba prior to the Ur III period at best, for instance. Also, "pre-Akkadian" cities for the most part were still inhabited in the Old Babylonian period and beyond. Have you perhaps considered Nippur, Isin or Uruk continued to appear in literature because they were populous, influential cities, and not because the myths you like represent some pristine "Sumerian" heritage untainted by "Semitic" influence or whatever?

I will finally address the elephant in the room, also: as also recommended by the Reallexikon (see here), for the most part only languages should be called "Semitic" - not deities, not peoples, not myths.

With all due respect, your knowledge of ancient Mesopotamia seems to boil down to a few books aimed at general audiences, mostly outdated ones, I really do not think you have the knowledge needed to weigh on this matter. Especially with this stubborn focus on separating the "Sumerian" from the "Semitic". HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Small addition: also, if by "pre-Akkadian" kings you mean these from Sumerian King List, I have bad news about the consensus regarding date of composition and historicity of this work. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is aimed for general audiences. And article title criteria is to keep it consonant with works of general reference. You may sneer at them, but I always give that more weight then I do fleeting academic pet theories that come and go.

This article is about the Sumerian sun god, not about literary texts. As to the distinction between Sumerian and Semitic deities, that is not "my theory", but a theory that has made the rounds and comes up occasionally. I am not particularly attached to it, but found it worth bringing up. It is, like all such theories, a bit speculative, but I find it rather plausible (religious syncretism is a thing), certainly much more plausible than your "scribes-came-up-with-from-scratch" theory, which has no basis whatsoever and flies in the face of everything we know about oral traditions and writing.

I find your argument very unconvincing. You are throwing a lot of sand in the air, laced with condescension, making claims that your very sources don't make. Whatever may be the limitations of my knowledge, I do know when something smells like BS.

As for the elephant, I am not German, so I don't have to worry about legacies of the term "Semitic". But that is probably good advice for his readers. Here I use it (like many do) as a term of convenience as we don't have another name for the Semitic-speaking peoples before they settled in identifiable parts of Mesopotamia. It is probably a safe bet that they had their own pre-Mesopotamian deities and myths before settling in. So a "Semitic god" and "Semitic myth" means that, in case that wasn't clear to you.

But like I said, I am not particularly attached to that, and I am not resting my case on it. I am resting my case on the frequent assertion, in many, many works, but esp. in works of general reference, that the Sumerian sun god is "Utu", and the later Babylonian equivalent is called "Shamash". And they usually treat the Sumerian name as primary, and so that primacy should be in this article title. The popularity of Shamash in your google-counts just reflects that more Akkadian texts exist, nothing more.

Walrasiad (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that Semitic speakers came in contact with Sumerian speakers quite early, and have already influenced each other before the Akkadian period (some early Sumerian texts already mention scribes with Semitic names.) Keeping this in mind, I do believe that it is difficult to establish a hard-drawned line between a "Sumerian" tradition and a "Semitic" tradition.

The issue with using the term "Semitic" to refer to religious or cultural aspects is mainly that it assumes all speakers of a language belonging to this family shared the same culture or myths, when they probably don't. As an example, Hurrian and Urartian are two related languages, but Urartu is culturally very distinct from the Hurrians (to quote Wilhelm, "Urartian culture is heavily marked with the stamp of Assyrian civilisation, and its religion has very little in common with Hurrian cults. The only real link between Urartians and Hurrians is linguistic".) In the same vein, it's also hard to argue the Hittites worshiped "Indo-European gods", as they adopted deities from their neighbors like Hattians, Luwians and Hurrians. Semitic languages are related, but it's hard to argue that they share a "Semitic culture" as well.

Shamash and Utu might be too assimilated to really argue that they are different gods. Unlike Erra and Nergal that occasionally do get invoked as separate gods, from what I can see no similar cases exist between Shamash and Utu. Baldpotat0 (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Support using the sumerian name is confusing, and Akkadian names are common names. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not think it's confusing to anyone with deeper interest in Mesopotamia because the sumerographic writing ^dUTU continued to be used for basically as long as cuneiform. Also, not every Akkadian name is the common one. Erra was used sporadically compared to Nergal, for instance (and we have some funny Neo-Babylonian sources where Erra is treated as if it was a rare, scholarly Sumerian name, while Nergal figures in corresponding passage in contemporary Akkadian - by far one of the most interesting finds from back when I worked on the Nergal article). Every single article needs to be considered on a case by case basis. This being said, this is obviously a case where the Akkadian name IS the more common one. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support: we are using common names, not oldest names. It is not possible to delineate between Utu and Shamash the way it is possible ex. between medicine goddesses or Marduk or Asalluhi, so it works best to switch to the most commonly used name. I wrote basically 95% of this article, I see no reason not to use the name which is both more commonly used today by experts and was the default through most of the god's history. The fact Sumerian names are nominally older (or rather - first to be attested in writing) does not mean much when they are less commonly used. Doesn't matter Ishkur is attested c. 2700 BCE and Adad c. 2400 BCE when the later name is by far more common in literature. Ningirsu is attested as a significant deity earlier than Ninurta, but the article uses the more commonly used second name. And so on (granted, I think there's a solid case to be made for splitting Ninurta and Ningirsu but let's keep that for another time).

This is a digression aimed more at an argument in an earlier response but referring to gods as having "Sumerian origin" seems somewhat ill informed. Mesopotamia was pretty much an example of a cultural koine and it's not really so clear cut. Is a god who had a nominally Sumerian original name but whose character only really formed at a time when his worshipers spoke Akkadian or even Amorite "Sumerian"? How about gods with Sumerian names who only emerged when virtually everyone spoke Akkadian (or Amorite or Hurrian - but not Sumerian). Also, much of the "literary canon" written in Sumerian only goes back to the Old Babylonian period when Akkadian was the vernacular and nobody spoke Sumerian as a living language anymore.

HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support as the common name. In addition, the first non-stub article at Shamash was from September 2002, predating this article. (The two were separate until Shamash was redirected here in 2018. It is not clear to me that redirecting one was the best approach, but if there is to be one article, I agree that it should be at Shamash. The significant history at the target would have to be retained as well.) Dekimasuよ! 12:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Mesopotamia is a cultural koine" runs in the face of the simple fact that the whole syllabographic component of the cuneiform system, with few exceptions, is based on the Sumerian words for things, not the Akkadian ones. This makes it clear that the original language of writing at the point when it moved past mere pictograms was Sumerian, not Akkadian, and the retention of cultural prestige by Sumerian after its extinction likewise indicates that Sumer was perceived as having had the leading role in Mesopotamian civilisation. The claim that given deities, stories or textual traditions did not exist until some point after the extinction of Sumerian is based on absence of evidence, which is an extremely weak basis for such a conclusion when talking about so poorly documented times. --62.73.69.121 (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Summerian vs. Assyrian

Change Shamash to Shamesh. 75.99.44.106 (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Sippar-Amnanum

While touching up the Sippar-Amnanum I wrote: "There was also a temple of Shamash in Sippar-Amnanum named Edikuda." REF - Tanret, Michel, "The seal of the sanga: on the Old Babylonian sangas of Šamaš of Sippar-Jaḫrūrum and Sippar-Amnānum" Vol. 40. Brill, 2010 ISBN 978-9004179585 No idea. Ploversegg (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)